Cool, thanks for the clarification, Shalin. -- Jan Høydahl, search solution architect Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
On 9. nov. 2010, at 15.12, Shalin Shekhar Mangar wrote: > On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Jan Høydahl / Cominvent > <jan....@cominvent.com> wrote: >> Not sure about that. I have read that the replication handler actually >> issues a commit() on itself once the index is downloaded. > > That was true with the old replication scripts. The Java based > replication just re-opens the IndexReader after all the files are > downloaded so the index version on the slave remains in sync with the > one on the master. > >> >> But probably a better way for Markus' case is to hook the prune job on the >> master, writing to another core (myIndexPruned). Then you replicate from >> that core instead, and you also get the benefit of transferring a smaller >> index across the network. > > I agree, that is a good idea. > > -- > Regards, > Shalin Shekhar Mangar.
